probe_media

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that it returns raw JSON and metadata, implying a read-only operation, but it never explicitly confirms that it does not modify files or have side effects. It also doesn't disclose any security implications of the allow_any_path parameter or mention error behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool that could potentially access arbitrary paths.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key outputs. It is efficient and free of fluff, but it lacks structure like bullet points or separate notes for parameters. Still, it earns a solid score for its brevity and clear focus.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While an output schema exists (which covers return format), the description omits essential context: parameter explanations, usage scenarios, and safety notes. Given the tool has two parameters with zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The overall picture is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke this tool, especially with allow_any_path being a potential security-sensitive option.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does not mention 'path' or 'allow_any_path' at all. The allow_any_path parameter, which likely controls security restrictions, is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its semantics. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool probes a media file with ffprobe and lists what it returns (streams, duration, resolution, codecs, raw JSON). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_ffmpeg or get_ffmpeg_docs, though the probe intent is distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for metadata inspection only, or contrast it with run_ffmpeg for processing. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description, which is insufficient for correct tool selection among many siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.